Monday, October 31, 2005
Some Great Comments - More On Freedom
My Saturday post on my discomfort with the concept of Christian freedom drew some great comments.
I would like to address one of those comments in particular. Mark Daniels said this
Historically the examples are rampant. Rasputin, for example, came to the place where he felt he was free to debauch. He in fact felt it neessary in order to experience grace at its fullest. (and before you bring it up, of course I know Romans 6:1-2, but that does not change the fact that Rasputin debauched himself in the name of God) Jim Jones of the People's Temple was convinced that as God's special prophet he was to father children by as many of his female congregants he could lay his hands on. The recently deceased Gene Scott knew, just knew, that his congregants were supposed to cough up cash for his several Rolls-Royces and rather impressive stable of equestrian flesh. These people all "sinned boldly" in what they thought was the pursuit of Christ.
I've met similar people on a smaller scale -- the pastor that manipulated his congregation into the extra gift of a car -- when he was already pulling down six-figures. They all are absolutely convinced that they are operating within the constraints of God's will, and the "freedom" that that provides.
"Abberations," "Flukes," "Miscreants," I often hear said when I bring this up. And yet, these condemnations of thier actions are never preached and only arise when I raise the issue. More importantly, such things do grevious harm to the name of God.
Christian "freedom" is not a straightforward idea. It comes with caveats, it must. "If you are in the Spirit" - "Guided by scripture and the Word" - "In submission to the Lord"
See, here is the thing -- I wonder if it is a concept most vaulable for another time. Christ came at a time when the law was oppressive. Freedom from that oppression was necessary and mandatory. We live in a most permissive age. In our age, and in large part the transformative nature of the gospel will make us appear to the world not as liberated (as it would have in Christ's and the apostle's time) but constrained. Not because we behave any differently than they did, but because the commonly accepted definitons of freedom and constraint have changed so radically.
We live in an age where all of society has already shucked the opppression of the law without picking up the mantle of Christ. They don't need freedom, they need transformation. That means, I think, that we need to be very careful in our use of the term "freedom" in the gospel context. It's reality I cannot deny. It's power is real. But it's effectiveness, in this age, I still have trouble with.
I would like to address one of those comments in particular. Mark Daniels said this
I think of the freedom of Christ as the freedom to fail. Luther talked about "sinning boldly." By that he meant that as we contemplate decisions in our lives, we should read God's Word, consider God's will as expressed in His Law, seek the counsel of trusted Christian friends, pray, and then, even if uncertain about what's right, do what we believe is right...sin boldly. God is interested in our motives. Even when we go wrong, if our will is to do God's will, we live in the knowledge of God's grace and acceptance. That, to me, is freeing.I cannot argue with what Mark says there taken in it's total, but people rarely take the time and energy to fully develop ideas, and that is what troubles me so. I am also less concerned about someone that proceeds in uncertainty, than I am with someone who proceeds with absolute certainty. BTW, I know Mark and he is a good man -- what proceeds from this point is not to pick a fight with Mark, it's my personal struggle with the idea.
Historically the examples are rampant. Rasputin, for example, came to the place where he felt he was free to debauch. He in fact felt it neessary in order to experience grace at its fullest. (and before you bring it up, of course I know Romans 6:1-2, but that does not change the fact that Rasputin debauched himself in the name of God) Jim Jones of the People's Temple was convinced that as God's special prophet he was to father children by as many of his female congregants he could lay his hands on. The recently deceased Gene Scott knew, just knew, that his congregants were supposed to cough up cash for his several Rolls-Royces and rather impressive stable of equestrian flesh. These people all "sinned boldly" in what they thought was the pursuit of Christ.
I've met similar people on a smaller scale -- the pastor that manipulated his congregation into the extra gift of a car -- when he was already pulling down six-figures. They all are absolutely convinced that they are operating within the constraints of God's will, and the "freedom" that that provides.
"Abberations," "Flukes," "Miscreants," I often hear said when I bring this up. And yet, these condemnations of thier actions are never preached and only arise when I raise the issue. More importantly, such things do grevious harm to the name of God.
Christian "freedom" is not a straightforward idea. It comes with caveats, it must. "If you are in the Spirit" - "Guided by scripture and the Word" - "In submission to the Lord"
See, here is the thing -- I wonder if it is a concept most vaulable for another time. Christ came at a time when the law was oppressive. Freedom from that oppression was necessary and mandatory. We live in a most permissive age. In our age, and in large part the transformative nature of the gospel will make us appear to the world not as liberated (as it would have in Christ's and the apostle's time) but constrained. Not because we behave any differently than they did, but because the commonly accepted definitons of freedom and constraint have changed so radically.
We live in an age where all of society has already shucked the opppression of the law without picking up the mantle of Christ. They don't need freedom, they need transformation. That means, I think, that we need to be very careful in our use of the term "freedom" in the gospel context. It's reality I cannot deny. It's power is real. But it's effectiveness, in this age, I still have trouble with.
